𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀: 𐰇𐰕𐰀𐰼𐰃𐰀𐰀: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰀𐰒𐰀:

: : : : 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ°€π°ƒ: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰀𐱅𐰒𐰀: 𐰋𐰱𐰃𐰒𐰃𐰓𐰃𐰼: 𐰋𐰀𐰃𐰒: 𐰴𐰣𐰃𐰒𐰲𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃: 𐰽𐰓𐰲𐰀: : 𐰑𐰆𐰖𐰆𐰖𐰀: π°ƒπ°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°π°’π°€π°š: 𐰖𐰯𐰃𐰲𐰃: π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°–π°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: 𐰼𐰾𐰃𐰒: 𐰏𐰇𐰼𐰒𐰀: 𐰒𐰇𐰕𐰢: 𐰑𐰆𐰖𐰒𐰀: 𐰒𐰆𐱃𐰯𐰀𐰴: 𐱃𐱃: π°€π°žπ°’π°€: 𐰯𐰀𐰺𐰯𐰇𐰒: π°΄π°Έπ°žπ°’π°€: 𐰒𐰀𐰽𐱁: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰑𐰸𐰆𐰣𐰒𐰀: π°šπ°ƒπ°Ύπ° π°Όπ°ƒπ°€π°€: π°šπ°ƒπ±ƒπ°‰: 𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰱𐰃𐰒𐰠𐰼𐰃𐰀𐰀: π°‡π°Όπ°€π°šπ±…π°ƒπ°Ό: π°―π°€π°šπ°ƒ: 𐰖𐰕𐰃: 𐰴𐰭𐰃: π°‘π°†π°–π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒπ°’π°ƒπ°•π°€: π°šπ°ƒπ±ƒπ°‰: 𐰀𐰓𐰼: π°–π°•π°€π°Ίπ°žπ°Ά: : 𐰑𐰆𐰖𐰆𐰖𐰀: π°šπ°ƒπ±ƒπ°‰: 𐰀𐰓𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰱𐰃𐰒𐰃: π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°£π°ƒπ°£: 𐰖𐰣𐰃: 𐰽𐰃𐰺: 𐰃𐰀𐰽𐰣𐰃𐰣: π°•π°ƒπ°šπ°€π°ƒπ°€π°€: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰾𐰾𐰠𐰀𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰃𐰼: 𐰇𐰼𐰀𐰏𐰃𐰀: 𐰃𐰀𐰽𐰣𐰃: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°’π°€π°˜π°€: π°Ύπ°‹π°š: 𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰖𐰕𐰃: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: π°΄π°‰π°†π°ž: 𐰀𐰓𐰃𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰠𐰃𐰓𐰃𐰼: 𐰚𐰼: 𐰀𐰀: 𐰴𐰑𐰺: 𐰆: 𐰖𐰕𐰃: : 𐰑𐰆𐰖𐰆𐰑𐰣: π°šπ°±π°‹π°ƒπ°Όπ°ƒπ°€π°€: π°šπ°ƒπ±ƒπ°‰: 𐰀𐱅𐰒𐰃𐰖𐰆𐰺: π°†π°žπ°½π°€: 𐰑: π°€π°ƒπ±…π°šπ°ƒπ°’: π°–π°•π°€π°Ίπ°žπ°Ά: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃: π°‰π±π°žπ°ƒ: 𐰉𐱁𐰃𐰣𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰀𐰒𐰀: 𐰴𐰆𐰣𐰆𐰽𐰆: π°†π°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Ό:
:
: : : : 𐰀𐰏𐰼: 𐰉𐰆: 𐱃𐰣𐰃𐰒𐰑𐰣: π°π°ƒπ°“π°²π°€π°š: π°†π°žπ°†π°Ίπ°½π°΄: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°’π°€π°š: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐱃𐰃𐰺: π°²π°‡π°€π°šπ°‡: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒ: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°‡π°Όπ°šπ°€: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ°€π°ƒ: 𐰉𐱁𐰴𐰽𐰃𐰣𐰀: π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°½π°€: 𐰑: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ°€π°€: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰀: π°€π±…π°’π°€π°˜π°€: π°²π°€π°žπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°Ί: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰃𐰏𐰼: π°Ύπ°‡π°˜π° π°’π° : π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°’π°€π°š: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰱𐰃𐰒𐰃𐰓𐰃𐰼: 𐰖𐰕𐰀𐰺𐰴: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°’π°€π°š: 𐰴𐰆𐰣𐰆𐱁𐰀𐰺𐰴: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°’π°€π°š: 𐰱𐰃𐰦𐰀𐰀: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°’π°€π°š: 𐰉𐰆: π°‰π°π°žπ°’π°‘π°€: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°―π°€π°€π° π°ƒπ°˜π±…π° π°Όπ°ƒπ°“π°ƒπ°Ό: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: 𐰖𐰕𐰑𐰃𐰍𐰃𐰣𐰃: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰉𐱁𐰴𐰽𐰃: 𐰸𐰆𐰒𐰀𐰽𐰀: 𐰑: 𐰴𐰆𐰣𐰆𐱁𐱃𐰆𐰍𐰆𐰣𐰆: 𐰑𐰆𐰖𐰒𐰀𐰽𐰀: 𐰑: 𐰖𐰀: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰱𐰃𐰦𐰀𐰀: 𐰏𐰲𐰀𐰀𐰠𐰼𐰃: 𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰾𐰀: 𐰓:
:
: : : : 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃: π°‹π° π°šπ°ƒ: 𐰓𐰀: π°‹π°ƒπ°Όπ°˜π°€: π°ƒπ°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°π°’π°€π°š: π°―π°€π°š: 𐰑𐰆𐰍𐰺𐰆: 𐰓𐰏𐰃𐰑𐰃𐰼: π°²π°‡π°€π°šπ°‡: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃𐰣: π°€π°£π°žπ±π°ƒπ°žπ°’π°€π°½π°ƒ: π°―π°€π°–π°žπ±π°ƒπ°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°’π°€π°Ύπ°ƒ: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃𐰣: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°žπ°†π°π°€: 𐰾𐰼𐰏𐰃𐰠𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰾𐰃: π°π°Όπ°šπ°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰣𐰸𐱃𐰑𐰀: π°šπ°ƒπ° π°ƒπ±…: 𐰽𐰆𐰺𐰆: 𐱁𐰆: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°’π°€π°š: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐱃𐰃𐰺: 𐰯𐰀𐰴𐱃: 𐰚𐰼: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰒𐰃𐰑𐰃𐰺:
:
: : : : 𐰉𐰆𐰺𐰑𐰀: 𐱁𐰆: 𐱃𐰣𐰃𐰒𐰃: 𐰆𐰖𐰍𐰆𐰣: 𐰏𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰖𐰆𐰺𐰆𐰒: 𐰀𐰏𐰼: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: 𐰏𐰀𐰠: 𐰋𐰏𐰀𐰃𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰀: 𐰀𐰾𐱅𐱅𐰢: π°šπ°ƒπ±ƒπ°‰: 𐰀𐰓𐰃𐰖𐰆𐰺𐰽𐰀: 𐰖𐰀: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: π°‹π°π°€π°ƒπ°˜π°ƒ: π°šπ°“π°―π° π°€π°’π°€π°“π°€: 𐰓𐰀: π°†π°žπ°½: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°–π°†π°Ίπ°½π°€: 𐰉𐰆: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀𐰓𐰃𐰼: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰀𐰾𐰼𐰃: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: 𐰏𐰀𐰠: 𐰋𐰏𐰀𐰃𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰀: π°šπ°ƒπ±ƒπ°‰: 𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀𐰀𐰃𐰀: 𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰀𐰇: 𐰃𐰾𐰀: 𐰲𐰀𐰍𐰑𐱁: π°‹π°π°€π°ƒπ°˜π°ƒ: 𐰲𐰢𐰀𐰺: 𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰲𐰃: π°π°‡π°“π°Όπ°š: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€π°˜π°€: π°²π°€π°žπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°–π°†π°Ίπ°½π°€: π°―π°€π°•π°€π°Ίπ°žπ°’π°€: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€: 𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰲𐰃: 𐰏𐰇𐰓𐰇𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰓𐰀: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°’π°ƒπ±π°Ύπ°€: 𐰇𐰕𐰏𐰇𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: π°½π°ƒπ°£π°ƒπ°―π°žπ°¦π°ƒπ°Ίπ°ƒπ°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Ό:
:
: : : : 𐰉𐰆𐰺𐰑𐰀: 𐰀𐰖𐰴𐰃𐰺𐰃: 𐰋𐰀: 𐰇𐰕𐰏𐰇𐰀: 𐱅𐰼𐰃𐰒𐰠𐰼𐰃: π°€π°Ίπ°½π°ƒπ°¦π°€π°šπ°ƒ: π°²π°ƒπ°•π°π°ƒπ°˜π°ƒ: π°²π°€π°šπ°’π°€π°€π°ƒπ°€: 𐰆𐰖𐰍𐰆𐰣: π°†π°žπ°²π°€π°π°ƒπ°£π°ƒ: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰇𐰖𐰆𐰺𐰆𐰒: 𐰀𐰖𐰴𐰃𐰺𐰃: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃: 𐰑: π°‹π°π°€π°ƒπ°˜π°ƒ: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€π°˜π°ƒ: π°šπ°“π°―π° π°˜π°ƒπ°―: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€π°’π°ƒπ±: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰀𐰒𐰀: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: π±ƒπ°£π°ƒπ°’π°žπ°–π°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Όπ°ƒπ°•: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰇𐰕𐰏𐰇𐰀: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°žπ°€: 𐰉𐰕𐰃: π°˜π°Όπ° π°Όπ°“π°€: π°šπ°Ύπ°ƒπ±π°€π°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰇𐰼𐰀𐰏𐰃𐰀: 𐰢𐰃𐰾𐰃: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰲𐰀𐰍𐰃𐰣: π°£π°†π°Ίπ°’π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒπ°£π°€: 𐰆𐰖𐰒𐰀𐰖𐰃: 𐰼𐰓𐰓𐰓𐰼: 𐰖𐰀: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: π°£π°†π°Ίπ°’π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒ: π°˜π±…π°Όπ°Ύπ°ƒπ°•: π°‰π°†π°žπ°†π°Ί: 𐰀𐰖𐰺𐰃𐰲𐰀: 𐰕𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰣𐰃𐰦𐰀: 𐰀𐰖𐰴𐰃𐰺𐰃: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: 𐰀𐰃𐱅𐰠𐰦𐰃𐰼𐰃𐰠𐰀: 𐰖𐰀: 𐰑𐰀: π°˜π±…π°Όπ°ƒ: 𐰴𐰑𐰺: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°˜π°€: π°†π°žπ±π°€π°’π°€π°’π°ƒπ±: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐱃𐰺𐰕𐰃: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: 𐰽𐰆𐰣𐰺𐰑𐰣: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰇𐰕𐰏𐰇𐰀: 𐰽𐰃𐰯𐰀𐱃𐰃𐰣𐰃: 𐰴𐰕𐰀𐰣𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰃𐰼: π±ƒπ°Όπ°ƒπ°šπ±…π°€: 𐰉𐰆𐰣𐰀: 𐰀𐰀: π°ƒπ°˜π°ƒ: π°‡π°Όπ°€π°š: 𐰉𐰣: 𐰍𐰆𐰍𐰴: π°†π°žπ°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί:
:
: : : : 𐰕𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰣𐰃𐰦𐰀: 𐰇𐰕𐰏𐰇𐰀: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: 𐰀𐰃𐱅𐰠𐰦𐰃𐰼𐰃𐰠𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰀𐰴𐰃𐰒: π°€π°½π°žπ°ƒπ°¦π°€: π±ƒπ°Όπ°ƒπ°šπ±…π°€: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: 𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰓𐰀𐰀𐰒𐰃𐱁: 𐰋𐰀: 𐰇𐰕𐰏𐰇𐰀𐰠𐰰: 𐰽𐰃𐰯𐰀𐱃𐰃𐰣𐰃: 𐰴𐰕𐰀𐰣𐰒𐰃𐱁: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰀𐰴𐰃𐰒𐰃𐰣: 𐰋𐰀𐰕𐰀𐰼𐰃: π°†π°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰑𐰆𐰺𐰆𐰒𐰑: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: 𐰽𐰆𐰣𐰺𐰑𐰣: 𐰋𐰠𐰃𐰼𐰀: 𐰀𐰴𐰃𐰒: 𐰇𐰕𐰏𐰇𐰀: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: π°΄π°‰π°†π°ž: 𐰀𐰓𐰃𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰠𐰃: 𐰒𐰃𐰓𐰃𐰼: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰴𐰆𐰣𐰆: 𐱃𐰺𐱃𐰃𐱁𐰒𐰀𐰖𐰀: 𐰀𐰲𐰢𐱃𐰃𐰺:
:
: : : : 𐱁𐰃𐰒𐰓𐰃: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰀𐰴𐰃𐰒: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰃: 𐰋𐰃𐰺𐰕: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: 𐰃𐰼𐰓𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰒𐰃𐰕: 𐰆𐰖𐰍𐰆𐰣: π°†π°žπ°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀𐰀𐰃𐰀: 𐰀𐰴𐰃𐰒: 𐰴𐰠𐰃𐰀𐰃: π°€π°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°’π°€π°Ύπ°ƒ: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: π°‹π° π°šπ°ƒ: 𐰓: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰏𐰃𐰠: 𐰋𐰃𐰼𐰴𐰲: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: 𐰉𐰆: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°²π°€π°˜π°ƒ: 𐰾𐰇𐰼𐰰𐰠𐰇𐰖𐰆𐰺: π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°½π°ƒ: π°π°Όπ°šπ°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰀𐰒𐰀: 𐰀𐰴𐰃𐰒𐰃𐰣: π°†π°žπ°†π±π°’π°€π°½π°ƒ: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰽𐰓𐰲𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰠𐰃𐰓𐰼𐰠𐰢: π°˜π±…π°Όπ° π°ƒ: 𐰓𐰏𐰃𐰑𐰃𐰼: 𐰀𐰖𐰺𐰃𐰲𐰀: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: π°šπ°Ύπ°ƒπ°’π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: π°“π°‡π±π°‡π°€π°²π°€π°˜π°ƒ: π°‹π°€π°ƒπ°’π°Ύπ°˜π°ƒπ°―: π°“π°Ύπ±…π°šπ° π°’π°€π°Ύπ°ƒ: π°π°Όπ°šπ°²π°€π°šπ±…π°ƒπ°Ό:
:
: : : : 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰏𐰇𐰕𐰠𐰒𐰃𐰒𐰃: 𐰽𐰆𐰣𐰒𐰀𐰴: 𐰃𐰾𐱅𐰃𐰖𐰆𐰺𐰆𐰒: 𐰏𐰇𐰀𐰇𐰒𐰇𐰕𐰓: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°π°ƒπ°¦π°€π°€: 𐰑𐰆𐰍𐰣: 𐰖𐰀𐰃: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: 𐰱𐰃𐰦𐰀𐰀: 𐰑𐰆𐰍𐰣: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°€π°΄π°ƒπ°’π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒ: π°€π°•π°€π°žπ°’π°ƒπ±π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: 𐰉𐰆𐰣𐰆𐰣: π°˜π°Όπ°ƒπ°€: π°―π°€π°•π°€π°Ίπ°žπ°’π°€: 𐰀𐰃𐱅𐰠𐰃𐰏𐰃𐰦𐰀: π°†π°žπ°£: 𐱅𐰰𐰀𐱅𐰃𐰲𐰃: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£π°€: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°Ά: 𐰒𐰀𐰑𐰓𐰃: 𐰏𐰇𐰲𐱅𐰀: π°“π°Ύπ±…π°š: π°€π°žπ°£: 𐰀𐰴𐰃𐰒: π°‡π°Όπ°€π°šπ° π°Όπ°ƒ: π°‰π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°΄: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: π°΄π°†π°žπ°–: π°†π°žπ°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: π°žπ°Ίπ°‘π°€: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰉𐰺𐰋𐰃: π°‹π°‹π°š: 𐰯𐰆𐰺𐰖𐰽𐰃: 𐰃𐰠: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: 𐰋𐰏𐰀𐰃𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰃: π°“π°π°ƒπ±π±…π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€π°˜π°€: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°Ά: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰴𐰒𐰠𐰀: π°–π°―π°ƒπ°žπ°’π°ƒπ±π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: π°€π°ƒπ±…π°šπ°ƒπ°’: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰴𐰒𐰠𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼𐰲𐰸: 𐰀𐰠𐱁𐱅𐰃𐰼𐰃: π°²π°€π°šπ°’π°ƒπ±π±…π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰏𐰇𐰀𐰇𐰒𐰇𐰕𐰓𐰀: 𐰓: 𐰉𐰆: π°΄π°’π° π°˜π°€: 𐰋𐰀𐰕𐰀𐰼: π°‹π°‡π°˜π°°: π°²π°†π°π°†π°£π°žπ°Έπ°žπ°€: 𐰉𐱃𐰃: π°΄π°–π°£π°΄π°žπ°ƒ: π°†π°žπ°£: π°‡π°Όπ°€π°šπ° π°Ό: π°‰π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°΄: 𐰕𐰆𐰺: π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°–π°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: 𐰇𐰕𐰀𐰠𐰠𐰢𐰠𐰀: 𐰯𐰃𐰠𐰒: 𐰲𐰀𐰒𐰃𐰀𐰽𐰃: 𐰃𐰠𐰼𐰃: 𐰏𐰇𐰼𐰾𐰠: π±…π°šπ°€π°Άπ° π°Όπ°ƒ: 𐰓𐰀: π°΄π°†π°žπ°žπ°£π°Ίπ°΄: 𐰉𐰆𐰣𐰆: π°‰π±π°€π°Ίπ°ƒπ°žπ°ƒ: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: π±π°€π°šπ°ƒπ°‘π°€: π°†π°–π°π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°‘π°ƒπ°Ί: 𐰴𐰃𐰽𐰲𐰀𐰽𐰃: 𐰏𐰇𐰀𐰇𐰒𐰇𐰕𐰓: 𐰽𐰣𐱃𐰃𐰣: 𐰏𐰃𐰓𐰲𐰀𐰏𐰃: π°˜π°‡π°€: 𐰒𐰀𐰑𐰓𐰃: 𐰏𐰇𐰲𐰇: 𐰀𐰠𐰃𐰦𐰀: π°‰π°†π°žπ°†π°¦π°†π°Ίπ°£π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒπ°£: π±…π°šπ° π°ƒπ°¦π°€π°“π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰉𐰆: 𐱅𐰕: 𐱃𐰋𐰢𐰃: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰒𐰀𐰑𐰓𐰃: π°΄π°–π°£π°΄π°žπ°ƒ: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰇𐰏𐰠𐰼𐰃𐰀𐰃𐰀: π°‰π±π°€π°Ίπ°ƒπ°žπ°ƒ: π°†π°žπ°’π°€π°–π°²π°€π°π°ƒ: π°€π°£π°žπ°’π°ƒπ°£π°€: 𐰏𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰕: 𐰉𐱁𐰀𐰺𐰃𐰣𐰃𐰣: π°£π°½π°ƒπ°ž: π±ƒπ°£π°ƒπ°’π°žπ°£π°²π°€π°π°ƒ: 𐰀𐰖𐰺𐰃: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰒𐰀𐰋𐰕𐰆𐰑𐰆𐰺:
:
: : : : 𐰽𐰆𐰣: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°“π°˜π°ƒπ°’π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: π°šπ°¦π°ƒ: 𐰀𐰲𐰃𐰒𐰑𐰣: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰃𐰼𐰓𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰃: 𐰖𐰯𐰒𐰀𐰴: 𐰃𐰾𐱅𐰃𐰖𐰆𐰺𐰆𐰒: π°²π°‡π°€π°šπ°‡: 𐰉𐰆: π°“π°˜π°ƒπ°’π°ƒπ°€: π±ƒπ°Όπ°ƒπ°šπ±…π°šπ°ƒ: π°˜π°Όπ°ƒ: π°‹π°‡π°˜π°°π±…π°‡π°Ό: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°€π°²π°Άπ°žπ°’π°€π°½π°ƒ: 𐰕𐰆𐰺: 𐰱𐰃: π°‘π°†π°žπ°†: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐱃𐰋𐰃𐰼𐰓𐰃𐰼: π°šπ°ƒπ°’π°ƒπ° π°Όπ°ƒπ°€π°€: 𐰏𐰇𐰼𐰀: π°―π°€π°Ίπ°΄π°žπ°ƒ: π°€π°£π°žπ°’π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒ: π°•π°ƒπ°šπ°ƒπ°€π° π°Όπ°“π°€: π°²π°€π°£π°žπ°¦π°ƒπ°Ίπ°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί:
:
: : : : 𐰉𐰆𐰣𐰆: π°šπ°¦π°ƒ: 𐰀𐰲𐰃𐰒𐰑𐰣: π°“π°π°Όπ° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€π°š: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀: 𐱃𐰣𐰃𐰒𐰃𐰣𐰀: 𐰉𐱁𐰉𐰆𐰺𐰲𐰀𐰍𐰃𐰒: 𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀𐰠𐰢𐰠𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰓𐰀𐰃𐰠𐰃𐰀𐰲𐰀: π°€π°΄π°žπ°€: 𐰏𐰠𐰀: 𐰀𐰀: 𐱅𐰒𐰀𐰠: π°²π°€π°π°Ίπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°’π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒ: 𐰽𐰆𐰣𐰒𐰀𐰴: 𐰃𐰾𐱅𐰃𐰖𐰆𐰺𐰆𐰒: 𐰯𐰀𐰺𐰀: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: π°–π°―π°ƒπ°žπ°’π°€π°–π°£: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰴𐰉𐰺𐰒𐰃𐰣𐰃𐰣: 𐰕𐰀𐰭𐰃𐰀𐰠𐱁𐱅𐰃𐰼𐰃𐰠𐰒𐰀𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰃: π°šπ°“π°―π° π°˜π°€: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰖𐰀: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰉𐱁𐰴𐰀: π°šπ°±π°‹π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰲: 𐰏𐰇𐱅𐰒𐰀𐰓𐰀: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ°€π°ƒ: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰀: π°€π±…π°’π°€π°˜π°€: π°²π°€π°žπ°ƒπ±π°’π°€π°½π°ƒπ°‘π°ƒπ±π°€: 𐰉𐰆𐰺𐰆𐰒: π°€π°΄π°žπ°ƒπ°’π°€: 𐰏𐰠𐰀: π°ƒπ° π°š: π°²π°€π°π°Ίπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°’π°žπ°Ί: π°€π°½π°žπ°ƒπ°¦π°€: 𐰉𐰆: π°²π°€π°π°Ίπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°’π°žπ°Ίπ°ƒ: π°‘π°†π°π°ž: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰕𐰃𐱃: 𐰴𐰆𐱃𐰉𐰆: 𐰑𐰀: π°•π°†π°Ίπ°žπ°’π°€: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°†π°žπ°Ίπ°΄: 𐰀𐰃𐱅𐰠𐰦𐰃𐰼𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰃𐰼𐰃𐰕:
:
: : : π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀: 𐱃𐰣𐰃𐰒𐰃𐰣𐰀: 𐰏𐰼𐰃: π°“π°‡π°€π°²π°€π°š: π°†π°žπ°†π°Ίπ°½π°΄: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: 𐰏𐰀𐰠: 𐰋𐰏𐰀𐰃𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰀: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°Ά: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰲𐰀𐰀𐰃𐰀: 𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰀𐰇: π°‘π°†π°π°ž: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰒𐰃𐰑𐰃𐰺: 𐰉𐰆𐰣𐰆: π°ƒπ°Όπ°“π° π°’π°€π°š: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰀𐰇: 𐰆𐰺𐱃𐰖𐰀: 𐰲𐰢𐰀𐰺𐰣: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: 𐰓𐰇𐰼𐱅𐰇𐰠𐰼𐰃𐰀𐰃: 𐰏𐰇𐰕𐰓𐰀: 𐰏𐰲𐰃𐰼𐰒𐰀𐰒𐰃𐰕: π°˜π°Όπ°ƒπ°¦π°€: π°†π°žπ°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: π°²π°†π°π°†π°£π°žπ°Έπ°ž: 𐰉𐰆: 𐱃𐰺𐰕: 𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰀𐰠𐰼: 𐰯𐰀𐰺𐰀: 𐰴𐰕𐰀𐰣𐰒𐰀𐰖𐰃: π°šπ°“π°―π° π°Ό: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: π°€π°΄π°žπ°ƒπ°¦π°€π°šπ°ƒ: π°šπ°“π°―: 𐱁𐰆: π°†π°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Ό: π°’π°€π°Ύπ°ž: : 𐰉𐰆: 𐱃𐰺𐰕: π°£π°½π°ƒπ°ž: π°†π°žπ°½π°€: 𐱃𐰆𐱃𐰒𐰆𐱁𐱃𐰆𐰺: 𐰋𐰀: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: 𐱃𐰺𐰕𐰃: π°΄π°†π°žπ°žπ°£π°Ίπ°΄: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: π°‹π°‡π°˜π°°: π°šπ°Ύπ°ƒπ°’π°ƒπ°€π°€: π°šπ°ƒπ±ƒπ°‰: 𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰀: 𐰆𐰺𐱃𐰖𐰀: 𐰲𐰢𐰀𐰺𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰃𐰼𐰃𐰒: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰀𐰀: 𐰺𐰍𐰋𐱅: 𐰲𐰸: 𐰋𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: π°½π°˜π°“π°€: π°šπ°‡π±π°€π°˜π°ƒ: 𐰓𐰇𐰀𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰃𐰼𐰃𐰒: 𐰴𐰆𐰯𐰖𐰀: 𐰇𐰼𐰇𐰀: 𐱃𐰋𐰢𐰃: 𐰓: 𐰉𐱁𐰴𐰀: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐰀𐰲𐰃𐰑𐰣: 𐰒𐰀𐰑𐰓𐰃: π°΄π°–π°£π°΄π°žπ°ƒ: 𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰲𐰃𐰣: 𐰑𐰃𐱁𐰃𐰦𐰀: 𐰑𐰀: π°€π°’π°€π°²π°žπ°Ί: 𐰆𐰺𐱃𐰖𐰀: π°²π°Άπ°€π°Ίπ°ƒπ°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰇𐰼𐰀𐰏𐰃𐰀: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒ: 𐰉𐰆: π°½π°£π±ƒπ°½π°ž: 𐱃𐰺𐰕𐰀: 𐰃𐰠𐰏𐰃: 𐰑𐰆𐰖𐰑𐰆𐰍𐰆: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ°Ύπ°ƒ: 𐰓𐰀: 𐰆𐰣𐰆: 𐱃𐰴𐰠𐰃𐱅: π°€π±…π°’π°€π°š: 𐰖𐰀: 𐰑𐰀: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: 𐰆𐰖𐰍𐰆𐰣: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: 𐱃𐰋𐰃𐰼𐰠: π°²π°€π°£π°žπ°¦π°ƒπ°Ίπ°’π°€π°΄: π°–π°†π°Ίπ°†π°’π°žπ°’π°€π°΄: 𐰃𐰾𐱅𐰃𐰖𐰆𐰺: π°†π°žπ°‹π°ƒπ° π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰉𐰆: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°ƒπ°’: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: π°‘π°†π°π°ž: π°΄π°Ίπ±π°ƒπ°žπ°£π°’π°€π°žπ°ƒπ°‘π°ƒπ°Ί: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰴𐰉𐰺𐰒𐰃𐰣𐰀: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: 𐰖𐰴𐰃𐰦𐰃𐰺:
:
: : : π°―π°€π°•π°€π°Ίπ°žπ°’π°€: 𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰲𐰃: 𐰏𐰇𐰓𐰀: 𐰖𐰀𐰃: π±ƒπ°†π°―π°žπ°†π°’π°†π°£: 𐰋𐰏𐰀𐰃𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰃: 𐰒𐰀𐰑𐰓𐰃: 𐰲𐰢𐰀𐰺: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€: π°²π°€π°žπ°ƒπ±π°€π°£: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°•π°†π°Ίπ°žπ°’π°€: π°†π°žπ°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰴𐰉𐰺𐰒𐰃𐰣𐰀: 𐱅𐰼𐰾: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰀𐰼: 𐰀𐰏𐰼: 𐰃𐱁𐰃𐰀: 𐰱𐰃𐰦𐰀: 𐰒𐰀𐰑𐰓𐰃: 𐰲𐰢𐰀𐰺: 𐰖𐰸𐰽𐰀: 𐰉𐰆: 𐰑𐰴𐰀: π°‘π°†π°π°ž: 𐰋𐰃𐰼: π°˜π°‡π°€π° π°¦π°ƒπ°Όπ°’π°€: π°†π°žπ°²π°€π°΄π±ƒπ°ƒπ°Ί:
:
: : : π°šπ°ƒπ°’: 𐰋𐰃𐰠𐰃𐰼: π°‹π° π°šπ°ƒ: 𐰓𐰀: π°šπ°ƒπ±π°ƒπ°€π°ƒπ°€: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ°€π°ƒ: π°šπ°¦π°ƒπ°€π°€: 𐰃𐰯𐰀𐰓𐰀: 𐰀𐱅𐰒𐰀𐰾𐰃: 𐰖𐰀𐰃: 𐰓𐰇𐱁𐰇𐰀𐰒𐰀𐰾𐰃: 𐰀𐰀: 𐰀𐰼𐰓𐰒𐰠𐰃: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: 𐰱𐰃𐰀: 𐰽𐰣𐱃: π°―π°€π°€π° π°ƒπ°˜π±…π°ƒπ°“π°ƒπ°Ό: 𐰀𐰀: 𐰓𐰼𐰾𐰃𐰀𐰃𐰕:
:
: : : π°˜π°ƒπ°π°ƒπ±…: 𐰸𐱃𐰺:
:
: : : 𐰃𐰀𐰆: 𐰃𐰕𐰒𐰃𐰼: 𐱅𐰼:

Latin alfabesi ile olanΔ± iΓ§in tΔ±klayΔ±n…

 

Düşünce üzerine: Sanatsal bir deneme

Β  Β  Sanat, bir kişinin kendini ifade etme biΓ§imidir. Benim kanΔ±mca, sanatΔ± sadece 5 duyuya indirgemek yapΔ±cΔ± olmayacaktΔ±r. Resim gΓΆrme, mΓΌzik duyma, mutfak tat alma, parfΓΌm koklama, masaj da dokunma hislerine hitab eden ifade biΓ§imlerine ΓΆrnektir. Peki yazΔ± hangi duyularΔ±mΔ±za hitab eder? YazarlΔ±k 5 duyuya hitab edebilen bir ifade biΓ§imi olmanΔ±n yanΔ± sΔ±ra, insanΔ±n zihnine de seslenebilir. Γ–rneğin, insanΔ± düşünmeye sevk eden bir yazΔ± da sanat olarak kabul edilmelidir, her ne kadar o yazΔ± 5 duyudan hiΓ§birine hitab etmiyor olsa da. Nitekim, yazarlΔ±k sanatΔ± başlΔ± başına bir deneme konusu olabilir.

Β  Β  Eğer bu tanΔ±mdan gidecek olursak, düşünmek de bir sanattΔ±r. ÇünkΓΌ, kişi düşünΓΌrken kendini, başkasΔ±na olmasa da, kendine ifade etmeye Γ§alışır. Bir diğer sΓΆylemle, düşünmek de bir ifade biΓ§imidir. Yazarak düşünmek, konuşarak düşünmek, iΓ§inden düşünmek; bu bağlamda sanat faaliyetleridir, kişinin yazdığınΔ± bir başkasΔ± okumasa da, konuştuğunu duymasa da, ya da iΓ§inden geΓ§enleri bilmese de.

Β  Β  SanatΔ± belki de bireye indirgemek pek doğru değildir. ÇünkΓΌ, sanatΔ±n anlaşılmasΔ±, paylaşılabilmesi iΓ§in bu sanatΔ±n bir topluluğa sergilenmesi gerekir. Bu noktada kilit soru şu. Düşünmek bir sanattΔ±r. Fakat her düşünce sanatsal mΔ±dΔ±r?

    Burada şu tanımı uygun gârüyorum: Eğer bir düşünce toplumun genel beğenisine (estetik) hitab ediyorsa ya da bu beğeniyi, hedeflenmeden de olsa, yânlendirebiliyorsa bu sanatsal bir düşüncedir. Bir sanat eseri, toplumun genel beğenisine hitab eden bir düşüncenin ürünü ise çağdaş, beğeniyi çıkar amacı güderek yânlendirmeye çalışıyorsa pazarlama sanatı, yânlendirme amacı güdülmeden yânlendirebilmişse âzgün sanat olarak sınıflandırılabilir.

Β  Β  Burada ‘aykΔ±rΔ±’ ve ‘ΓΆzgΓΌn’ terimleri arasΔ±ndaki Γ§izgiyi Γ§ekmenin uygun olacağınΔ± düşünΓΌyorum. ‘AykΔ±rΔ±’ sanatΔ± da, beğeniyi yΓΆnlendirmeyi hedefleyip yΓΆnlendirememiş bir deneme olarak tanΔ±mlayabiliriz. Bu, ΓΆzgΓΌn sanatla bazΔ± yerlerde kesişebilir. Γ–rneğin, ikisi de Γ§ağın normlarΔ±na uymayΔ± reddeder ya da bu normlarΔ± yetersiz bulur. AyrΔ±ca, zamanΔ±nda ‘aykΔ±rΔ±’ olarak nitelendirilen ya da yeteri kadar kişiye ulaşamamış bir sanat tarzΔ±, daha sonradan da ‘ΓΆzgΓΌn’ sΔ±fatΔ±nΔ± kazanabilir. Tarihten buna en iyi ΓΆrnek Van Gogh olacaktΔ±r.

Β  Β  ZamanΔ±nda ΓΆzgΓΌn olarak nitelendirilen bir akΔ±m, aslΔ±nda tarihte daha ΓΆnceden de denenmiş ve ΓΆzgΓΌnlΓΌk sΔ±fatΔ±nΔ± kazanmış bir akΔ±mΔ±n benzeri olabilir. Bu durumda, daha sonradan beliren akΔ±m ‘ΓΆzgΓΌn’ olarak kabul edilmeli midir? Bu konu tartışmaya aΓ§Δ±ktΔ±r.

    Şimdi, sanatsal akım ifadesini biraz daha irdelememiz uygun olacaktır. Sanatsal bir düşüncenin akım halini alabilmesi için, belki de, bir değil birkaç kişinin bu düşünceyi sürüklüyor olması gerekir. Ama akımın oluşması için sadece bu sanatsal liderlik yeterli değildir. Ayrıca, toplumun bir kesiminin de bu düşünceyi benimseyip desteklemesi gerekecektir.

Β  Β  Bir gΓΆzlemimi sunmak istiyorum. GΓΌnΓΌmΓΌzde, kendiliğinden doğan, yani toplumun iΓ§inden doğan, sanat akΔ±mlarΔ± azalmıştΔ±r. Bunun yerine, pazarlama niteliğinde olan, tΓΌketici toplumuna yΓΆnelik, maddi gΓΌΓ§ten destek alan akΔ±m ΓΆrnekleri bulmak daha kolay olacaktΔ±r. 90’larda bir barbi bebek furyasΔ± ile, toplumun beğenisini değiştirmeye yΓΆnelik bir hamle yapΔ±lmıştΔ±r. Nitekim, bu hamle birΓ§ok eleştiri Γ§ekmiştir. GΓΌnΓΌmΓΌzde de, bu hamleye benzer, bΓΌyΓΌk Γ§oğunlukla batΔ± kaynaklΔ± olan, ΓΆrnekler bulmak zor olmayacaktΔ±r. Γ–zellikle film camiasΔ±, ileri gΓΆrsel teknikleri de kullanarak bunu başarΔ±lΔ± bir şekilde uygulamaktadΔ±r. KΔ±sacasΔ±, gΓΌnΓΌmΓΌzde, sanatΔ±n gideceği yΓΆn, maddi gΓΌcΓΌ elinde bulunduranlarΔ±n tekelindedir. Bu tez, tabiki de maddi kaynaklΔ± sanat âğelerinin başarΔ±lΔ± olamayacağı anlamΔ±na gelmez. BaşarΔ±nΔ±n nasΔ±l tanΔ±mlanacağı ayrΔ± bir mevzudur.

Β  Β  Son olarak, ‘sanat iΓ§in sanat’ deyiminin kendi aΓ§Δ±mdan bir irdelemesini yapmak istiyorum, çünkΓΌ bu deyimin tarihteki yeri bΓΌyΓΌktΓΌr. ‘Sanat iΓ§in sanat’ aΓ§Δ±klamasΔ± zor, iΓ§i dolu bir tabirdir. Kimilerine gΓΆre farklΔ± anlamlarΔ± zihinlerde canlandΔ±racaktΔ±r.

Β  Β  Bunu kendi aΓ§Δ±mdan değerlendirmek iΓ§in ‘sanatsal’ düşünce tanΔ±mΔ±na başvuracağım. Γ–ncelikle ‘sanat iΓ§in sanat’ denilince, akla gelen en temel Γ§ağrışımlarΔ± sunmak istiyorum. Para iΓ§in yapΔ±lmayan sanat, sanat kavramΔ±nΔ±n zenginleştirilmesini hedefleyen sanat, ya da başka hiΓ§bir amaΓ§ gΓΌtmeden kişinin kendini ifade etmeye Γ§alışmasΔ±(dışa vurum) aklΔ±ma gelen ilk Γ§ağrışımlar. AslΔ±nda bu Γ§ağrışımlarΔ± ‘doğal’ sanat, zΔ±t kutbu da ‘zorlama’ sanat olarak nitelendirebiliriz.

Β  Β ‘Sanatsal düşünce’ tanΔ±mΔ±na geri dΓΆnecek olursak; toplumun genel beğenisine yΓΆnelik bir düşüncenin ΓΌrΓΌnΓΌ ‘doğal’ sanat mΔ±dΔ±r? Bunu irdelemek iΓ§in ΓΌrΓΌnΓΌ ortaya Γ§Δ±karan kişinin dΓΌrtΓΌlerini gΓΆzden geΓ§irmemiz yerinde olacaktΔ±r. Γ‡oğunlukla, bu tarz ΓΌrΓΌnler para kazanmayΔ± hedefler. Kişinin aklΔ±ndaki hedef şu olabilir mesela: ‘ Bu tarz nasΔ±l olsa tutmuştur. Ben de bu tarzΔ± kullanarak toplumun bΓΌyΓΌk kesimine hitab eden bir ΓΌrΓΌn ortaya Γ§Δ±karabilirim. Bu ΓΌrΓΌne rağbet Γ§ok ve bu sayede kâşeyi dΓΆnebilirim.’ (kopya ΓΌrΓΌn). Tabiki de, başka bir aΓ§Δ±dan, maddi kaynaklΔ± amacΔ±n dışında da amaΓ§lar ortaya Γ§Δ±karΔ±labilir. Γ–rneğin, kişi, bu sanatsal tarza ilgi duyduğu iΓ§in, kendisi de onu taklit etmek, ya da daha uygun bir tabirle, canlandΔ±rmak, yorumlamak istiyor olabilir. Bu yΓΆnelim daha ‘doğal’ karşılanmalΔ±dΔ±r. Bu ‘sanat iΓ§in sanat’ kavramΔ±na daha yakΔ±ndΔ±r.

Β  Β Pazarlama amacΔ± gΓΌden, yani toplumun beğenisini maddi Γ§Δ±kar iΓ§in yΓΆnlendirme Γ§alışan sanat, ‘zorlama’ olacaktΔ±r. Bu ‘sanat iΓ§in sanat’ kavramΔ±na ters düşer. Eğer işin iΓ§inde maddi Γ§Δ±kar yoksa bu daha ‘doğal’ bir yΓΆnlendirme olacaktΔ±r.

Β  Β Kim bilir, belki de kişinin kendini kendine ifade etmesi, yani düşünmesi, en erdemli ‘sanat iΓ§in sanat’ faaliyetidir. Ne dersiniz?

   Yiğit Oktar

Β  Β IEU,Β Δ°zmir, TR

Eski TΓΌrk harfleriyle onlanΔ±Β iΓ§in tΔ±klayΔ±n…

 

The Ultimate Theory of Universe

cartoon-god-24799689In response to “WHY THERE
ALMOST CERTAINLY
IS NO GOD” by Richard Dawkins(Author)

God’s existence or absence is for sure a complex debate to be settled. The Universe itself is really complex, and the human mind is incapable of grasping such complexity. Aristotle tries to settle this debate by stating that universe itself is a chain of changes that traces back to the God, who is unchangeable that drives all changes. A supporting view is that, as human’s create tools, God as well is a creator. However, this can be refuted as there should be a creator that created the God itself. Avicenna argues that what if the God is its own creator and the creator of all other beings. In other words, God is the sourceΒ  and creator of all abstract things, essences. Darwin tries to settle this debate once for all by means of natural selection. However, it does not explain how life emerged. He rather refers to how life evolved. Will there ever be a ultimate theory of universe? We do not know yet and we may never know.

If the Universe was a simulation. like in computers, even the fastest and most complex computer of our era will not be able to sustain such complexity. Each life form is unique in its own aspect. “1=1” makes sense to us because we are accustomed to it. However, in universe or in our own planet, nothing equals to another thing. Even a hydrogen atom is different than another. At least their positions will be different.tThis form of logic leads to the idea of Intelligent Design. Author explains this through the term “argument from improbability”, the fact that this complexity cannot be formed by mere chance.This is extended with this example; some observed phenomenon β€” often a living creature or one of its more complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the universe itself β€” is correctly extolled as statistically improbable. In simple terms, argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance. Thus, many people following this argument believes that complexity of universe is itself a proof of God’s existence.

According to Aristotle, this complexity could be explained through the idea of movement. For him, movement was a general term. Movement was meant to generalize any state of change, whether it be heating, cooling, or growth, etc. He also claimed that these changes should be chained together. When you track the this chain of movements to its source, there should be a being that is the ultimate source, which itself is unmovable, the Prime Mover [1]Β  Aristotle further supports divine power through this reasoning. If Happiness is a virtuous activity, then it will be in accord with the most supreme virtue. The most supreme virtue is theoretical study and contemplation. The most supreme object of contemplation is the divine. It follows that happiness consists in the activity of contemplation of the divine.[3]

Another simplistic view is that, God’s creation of universe is in fact similar to a human creating a tool. As a human can create a tool, God is the ultimate creator and has the power to create a life form. This argument can be refuted through its own logic. One could say, there should be a creator that created the God, which will be an entity that is more powerful that God itself. In the text, this argument is supported by Fred Hoyle’s famous Boeing 747 metaphor. Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

In an opposite view, Avicenna’s argument tries to prove God is the ultimate creator. He states that all things and beings do come and go. In other words, they are not necessary. Therefore, their existence must depend on something necessary. God itself does not depend on something to exist, so it must be necessary. He is rather saying that God is its own creator, and the creator of all other things.Β  According to Avicenna, each entity is formed of two things, essence and existence. Perhaps, essence is the abstract formulation, like a human soul, or definition of a triangle, whereas existence is the physical manifestation. Thus, essence of a thing is independent of whether it exists or not. This formulation extends to the fact that God’s necessary existence makes everything else to exist. In addition to that, God does not know things as individual existing entities, but through their essences. This, in fact, is a Platonic understanding of God, where God is the form of all abstract things that can be thought of. [2]

It is very suited now to bring up GΓΆdel’s Incompleteness theorem which is proved by himself.Β  In short, any entity which can be encapsulated by a circle needs something outside of the circle to explain itself. Following this statement, then if we draw a circle around the universe there will be an entity outside of this circle, that will explain the Universe. Let us call this God. Now, let us draw another circle around the universe and God. There will still be something outside the circle according to his theory. We can resolve this issue by stating that the Universe is itself the God. Perhaps, Avicenna’s argument is along these lines.

On the other hand, Darwinian approach states that, the current status of our planet has been gradually evolved according to the rules of natural selection. It is well established to prove the life forms and their history. However, in most religious textsΒ  God question arises with the manifestation ofΒ  human form, Adam and Eve i.e. . But, what accounts for the life before human beings arisen? Darwin’s evolutionary approach exactly addresses this. However, Darwin’s theory does not address the questions before the start of carbon based life forms and how such thing as living being formed.

The author explains Darwinian approach really well. The author wrote “What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so.” Then he further supports it with the comment thatΒ  a theistΒ  “insistsΒ  on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn’t understand the power ofΒ accumulation.”Β  However, this still does not explain how life emerged in our planet.

In fact, Darwinian theory can be tied to human consciousness. Let’s say we come from the same ancestors as apes. Our consciousness is sure more developed than apes. We can understand what is going on in the Universe better. We can create and use technology. We keep pushing forward for a higher level of consciousness. The author gives an example of this through feminist movement. We have been living in a world dominated by man-oriented point of view. We even use the term mankind avoiding the contributions of women. Through feminist movement though we, in a way, advanced our level of collective consciousness as a step towards understanding God, perhaps. All advancements in science, whether it be in biology, physics or cosmology are contributing to our consciousness in some way.

Darwin’s theory is based on biology through the means of natural selection.Β  It can be explained through genetics and biochemistry with our current understanding. It states that the fittest individuals are able to reproduce and transmit their genes to next generations. One ignorant view is that, if we were evolved from apes, why there are still apes. However, the fact is that our ancestors are common. Besides biology, there is not yet a Ultimate Theory in Physics that will explain all and will surely end this debate.Β  However, such a theory will perhaps address to the issue of luck, or in other words probability. Such a theory will perhaps need to surpass our human intuition and perhaps above average people will only be able to understand it. Perhaps even if such a theory exists, we will never be able to grasp it.

Will there ever be an Ultimate Physics Theory? Quantum physics surpasses Newtonian physics for sure. Also, we are a bit more informed by Big Bang theory with other advancements in modern day physics. Perhaps, we are getting closer to understanding God through the scientific way. One would ask the question, though, whether these physic theories are only better and better approximations to understanding the God. These are for sure in the right path as experimentation can confirm them. It is better and more brave that just believing in God, than not pushing it forward. Scientists have the motivation to explain a fact through experimentation. Perhaps accepting God’s existence is the easiest way out.

It is important to note that, science and spirituality are not really two opposite poles. Β  Another way to state this is that, faith and reason are not enemies. They actually complement each other.Β  Einstein, himself was a believer. Pure logic cannot explain the Universe, at least now. Thus, to complement our lack of knowledge we need to get support from spirituality. Leonardo Da Vince was also supportive of using these two entities together, through whole brain thinking. There should be no shame to have faith in a supreme power. Actually, accepting existence of God is in other aspect accepting that we are only human beings as not perfect, incapable. A question arises here. What if the universe itself is not perfect, and there is a gap that will never be filled, as the universe itself is based on this fault. Perhaps, not everything can be proved. Thus, we will perhaps never be able to resolve this debate.

Let us think the existence of God as a system of equations where science need to solve. It will sure be a really hard problem to solve. However, accepting God’s existence or absence, we choose the easy way out by reducing such a complex problem to a single equation. This refers back to the consciousness. Perhaps, we can relate consciousness to better and better approximations to this system of equations. There could be an exact solution to this system of equations. But currently, our level of consciousness is not enough to answer this question. We can also think through a ladder metaphor. We keep taking steps up the stairs, without knowing what lies top of the stairs. Maybe, the staircase is infinitely long, or maybe there is an end to be reached. The author supports this claim by saying, “Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the main strategy of creation propagandists is the negative one of seeking out gaps in scientific knowledge and claiming to fill them with β€˜intelligent design’ by default”. He further claims that “Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science”. Ignorance is a gap of knowledge. Scientists try to fill these gapsΒ  though their own way. However, “Gaps, by default in the mind of the creationist, are filled by God.” There is no correct way to approach the question. Perhaps they are two different approaches, but it is hard to say which is better.

This debate has driven humankind for many centuries. Perhaps, it will still drive for many centuries ahead. However, as human beings we need to keep in mind that we are limited. As ants cannot grasp humans, humans will perhaps never be able to grasp the idea of God, whether it exists or not. We need to keep pushing forward through sciences, without losing our faith. If God is a delusion, we can think like this, delusions are the most powerful way to sustain motivation. Believing in God is not necessarily a bad thing, as it gives people some comfort zone when logic fails. Perhaps, universe is a chain of contradictions itself. Maybe one does not equal to one, but equals to 0. “1=0” may be the ultimate theory, who knows.

– Yigit Oktar

 

Refs.

[1]-http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/aristotle_prime_mover.htm

[2]-http://www.philosimply.com/philosopher/avicenna

[3] http://godandthegoodlife.blogspot.com.tr/2010/09/aristotle.html

 

Bipolarism: A Short Perspective

BIpolarEvery person, to some extent, goes through mood swings with long or short durations. But, perhaps what describes these mood swings as illness or not is whether these originate from environmental factors or from person himself without any external disturbance.

Aristotle describes optimal life to be of a contemplative one. What I observe is the fact that, in modern era, we do not care much about our body but only about our brain. We can sit in front of a computer all day long, and such an act will be normal. However, Aristotle’s approach undermines our body. Perhaps, we should not ignore our body, or else we are doomed to live our lives only in our heads. That is why, action is as important as a thought. Without action, thought is just an illusion.

Another observationΒ about bipolar swings is the fact that weather started to be intermittent. Perhaps, because of global warming, whether started to become unpredictable. This certainly affects people’s moods during the day. As whether, people’s moods started to be intermittent. How can medicine help to stabilize people’s reaction to environment?

Now let us refer to medical treatments of this behavior. In a metaphor, a person’s mood is like a see-saw. Antidepressants are used to elevate moods, as to pull him out of depression. Antipsychotics are used to damp his elevated mood. These are on opposite ends of spectrum. And there are mood stabilizers, which are used to keep see-saw stable and perhaps the best approach is this. In opposite poles, a person can become psychotic. So, usage of too much antidepressants or antipsychotics can both lead to psychosis. Another analogy can be given a mathematical function. The function values fluctuate through out a person’s life. But, when it starts to go like a unpredictable stock price, it becomes out of control. On both extrema, there is psychosis. So, what is best is to keep this function in normal levels.

Definition of intelligence is similar to this analogy. At a certain time, intelligence can be a high value. In fact, a person can be smarter than other at a certain time. However, this does not mean he is smarter than the other. Perhaps, a better definition would be an integral average of this intelligence function.

We have two aspects in our mind. One has a negative outlook on life and tries to control the environment he is in. The other is positive outlook, accepting the environment.

 

Yigit Oktar

 

How Does Email Work?

Email systems consist of two different servers. One of these is SMTP server (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol). This is responsible for outgoing mails. There is another server, dedicated for incoming mail. This can either be Β a POP3 server(Post Office Protocol) or an IMAP server(Internet Mail Access Protocol).

The SMTP Server

Usually when an email client is set up, a server needs to be designated as the SMTP Server, such as mail.something.com. When an email is sent, the client connects to that SMTP server. The SMTP server processes “to” field i.e user@another.com. If domain of “to” address is itself was something.com, the SMTP server would hand the email to POP3 or IMAP server of something.com. However, since the domain is different i.e. another.com, it needs to resolve that address as it is unknown.

In this case, the SMTP server communicates with a DNS(Domain Name Server) and learns the address of another.com. Since the address is resolved now, our SMTP server can connect with the SMTP server residing at another.com. When the email arrives at SMTP server of another.com, then as you might guess, it hands the message to its own POP3 or IMAP, incoming email, server. And sending process completes.

Let’s say for some reason a connection could not be established. Then, the outgoing mail will be queued and the server will periodically retry to send it around every 15 minutes. That’s why sometimes email messaging can be delayed for some time due to connection problems between two servers. After four hours, an error might be sent to you if your email did not go through.

Let’s move on to the incoming system

The POP3 and IMAP Servers

If incoming server is POP3 , your email client connects to a POP3 server, and then brings copies of your incoming email to your local machine. In general case, those emails will be deleted from the server but will exist locally in your machine.

POP3 protocol is rather simplistic. If the emails rather stayed in the server, you would be able to connect to the server and retrieve messages from anywhere you like. Through a browser from the web, from your smartphone etc. However, with POP3 the messages will be stuck in one machine. A more advanced protocol IMAP saves the day as it is designed to keep emails in the server. You can organize, search and do other tasks on the emails anywhere you like in synch as emails reside in the server.

There is just one problem with IMAP, however. Since your emails reside in the server, if you are not connected to Internet, how would you reach them? This is rather easy to solve, as the modern clients make copies of emails in your local machine, which a process technically called “caching”.

spam_cartoon

 

Refs.

  1. http://computer.howstuffworks.com/e-mail-messaging/email.htm
 

Is D Language Picking Up?

Have you ever considered learning C/C++ by heart, but scared to do so because of low level stuff? If this is the case, you might give D Language a shot.

In their wiki, the designersΒ claimΒ D can be perceived asΒ “what C++ wanted to be,” which is a better C. In short, D is developed with system level programming in mind, but brings to the table modern language design with a simple C-like syntax. [1]

D’s design goals attempt to combine the performance and safety ofΒ compiled languagesΒ with theΒ expressive powerΒ of modernΒ dynamic languages. Idiomatic D code is commonly as fast as equivalent C++ code, while being memory-safe. [2]

But, is the language gaining popularity among developers? I personally heard about D from a fellow programmer. Wikipedia states that, D has been initiatedΒ around 2006 by Walter Bright of Digital Mars and Andrei Alexandrescu. Perhaps, Digital Mars’ influence on corporate world is not that heavy yet to push D to the state of Java or C/C++.

But, I feel like it was successful to ignite a spark among programmers that are open to experimentation. Β  There is a significant amount of programmers that are not under the influence of main stream tech.

Here is a chart from LangPop.com that shows a popularity ranking based on various data sets.

[3]

Screen Shot 2015-02-28 at 5.53.04 PM

 

Actually, I was surprised to see 15th place right after ASP. However, In Google search results and in Google’s indexed pages, it does not have a bright rank.

Here is ranking based on reddit’s programming page.

[3]

Screen Shot 2015-02-28 at 6.10.17 PM

 

According to this chart D certainly is being discovered, being considered and discussed.

However if we look at chart based on actual code contributions via github:

Screen Shot 2015-02-28 at 6.13.37 PM

D is severely lacking here. So, although D is being discussed or considered as an alternative to C or Java, people that made the switch are relatively few in number.

Perhaps the main reason for such hesitation is the lack of a well-established community that is eagerly supporting D through contributions to a general code base. It is really easy to search the web to find ways to accomplish specific tasks in Java or C/C++. However, D is severely lacking in web material right now. As this code base builds up D will eventually become more popular. It is still questionable whether it will ever reach the status of a mainstream language.

 

I want to conclude with some links for D.

 

 

Refs.

  1. http://wiki.dlang.org
  2. Bright, Walter.Β D programming Language SpecificationΒ (e-book ed.). 7227: Digital Mars (via Amazon).
  3. http://langpop.com
  4. http://www.dlang.org/
  5. http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html
  6. http://www.amazon.com/The-Programming-Language-Andrei-Alexandrescu/dp/0321635361
  7. http://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/the-case-for-d/217801225
  8. http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly/1407357
 

What’s New in Java 8?

I personally prefer Java over C/C++, because Java feels neater and there isΒ less low-level stuff you need to worry about. Another reason is perhaps Java was the first language I learnt.

It is nice to see that Java has evolved into something smarter and more functional especially with Java 8. I did not have enough opportunity to test the new features thoroughly, but sooner or later any Java programmer needs to learn about these new additions.

I will try to list some of the core changes/additions here. You can find various articles on the web (thereΒ areΒ even whole books) on this issue and perhaps you may want to try the features by yourself.

 

  • Lambda Expressions

One’s introduction to lambda expressions may not be that welcoming as it forces your mind to think in a more abstract level. DrDobbs has a really nice article on this subject.Β [1] He refers to lambda expressions as any block of code that can be passed around freely to be executed. Since Java used to beΒ a conventional object-oriented language,Β passing around code blocks was not possible as you had to explicitly create an object with the desired code. We can now call Java a blend of object-oriented and functional programming.

Functional programming is inherently better suited for concurrent programming. It enables the coder to spawn threads, register handlers with ease. (remember all those extra work in Java for those) Up to now, Java designers resisted to functional elements to keep their system neater, concise and perhaps more user friendly. Perhaps, after the decision made, Β the ultimate challenge for them was to devise a way to integrate functional programming to Java.

What is really exciting is that now you can use function expressions in Java, just like in an other functional language.

Consider this:

where you had to explicitly write the looper. But now:

will do the work. A cool short-hand we used to see inΒ other functional languages.

 

functional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2]

 

 

  • Extension Methods

Default, Defender or Extension methods provide a mechanism to add new methods to existing interfaces. This was a challenge for the designers as they had to ensure Java staysΒ backwards compatible. Methods with default keyword are known as default methods or defender methods in Java. In old Java, it was impossible toΒ changeΒ an interface once publishedΒ asΒ anyΒ change would have broken all clients. Since backward compatibility is top priority for Java engineers, and it wasn’t practical to break all clients, they introducedΒ default methods.Β [3]

To give an example consider this interface:

multiply method is abstract has to be implemented.

However, square method is usable on its own. The cool thing is that you can add as many default methods to the interface that are dependents onΒ abstract methods. That way, if you want to implement another class from the interface you will only need to implement the abstractΒ methods.

Perhaps these are two most memorable changes in Java 8.

The list goes on…

  • Mechanism to retrieve parameter names of methods and constructors at run-time via core reflection
  • Filter, Map, and Reduce implementations
  • Lazy evaluation
  • Parallel Array Sorting
  • Date and Time APIs
  • Base64 Encoding and Decoding
  • Locale Data Packing
  • Configurable Secure Random Number Generator
  • Nashorn JavaScript Engine (pretty cool!)

Check out [4] if you are interested in the JavaScript Engine

I hope Java 8 brings a new vibe to developers and opens paths to new exciting software

 

[5developers-java2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refs

  1. http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/lambda-expressions-in-java-8/240166764
  2. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1270:_Functional
  3. http://javarevisited.blogspot.com.tr/2014/07/default-defender-or-extension-method-of-Java8-example-tutorial.html
  4. http://winterbe.com/posts/2014/04/05/java8-nashorn-tutorial/
  5. http://www.datamation.com/news/tech-comics-java-developers-1.html
 

Strong AI is nearly here!

Yeah, I tried this new deep learning stuff myself. FromΒ aΒ personal point of view, I got the sense that I am actually experimenting with an artificial brain that works very similar to human brain.

Actually, it is really hard to say that neural networks and human brain work on exact same principles yet. It will be an irrational claim to do so. However, according to the results we get with these deep networks we can claim that they indeed performΒ their tasksΒ pretty damn well! Not to mention that their underlying principals are complex enough that, if you keep the network large you get a pretty complex structure that you may not fully formalize, yeah!, just like the human brain.

Now, let us scale this up. Let us say that Google or Facebook (idc!) trained some deep networks. Let’s say server A is trained for processing sounds. Server B, images. Server C, text and blah, blah… Yeah, just like the brain having areas to process different types of information.

Here is the catchy part. Now connect these servers to each other or let them communicate with each other. Let’s say you also give this ensemble the ability to make decisions, on certain situations, based on consultancies from its expert networks.

A scenario here. HAL[1] knows how to detect a suspicious person(or action) from image. It also knows to make distinctions between male, female, face!

Now a burglary just happened. The shop has a surveillance camera and took the photo of the criminal.

HAL has this photo. Now, HAL scans the surveillance cameras nearby the shop and detects the criminal.Β Bind a decision to this detection activity and here you have an entity acting on its own without any 3rd party interference.

But, if you think about connectivity, processing information, and decision making, this ensemble of networks is not far from Eagle Eye[2]. And I personally believe that, this should be counted as a level of consciousness and the subject should be treated carefully.

 

Refs.

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000
  2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059786/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
 

Indie Dev Cycle

“The distinction between the length of motivation an individual experiences is described in this concept. Short-term motivation can be gained from another person who projects ideas, wisdom, and agreeable content on behalf of the listener. When a mutually advantageous conjunction of distinct elements, also known as synergy, is conveyed upon them, this can produce short-term motivation in that person.

Long-term motivation can be gained most effectively when an individual internalizes this advantage and consciously labors to maintain it through a high state of mindful contributions.” [r]

 

Although this statement may partially be correct, I don’t think that short-term motivation can only be gained through social interactions. This will be equivalent to saying that there is a fine distinction between an introvert and extrovert.

What I personally believe that short-term motivation is gained through creative state of mind, whereas for long-term is a combination of both creative and logical mind, perhaps logic dominating.

A person can himself trigger his creative parts without requiring social interactions. Although short-term motivation can result in inspirational outcomes, Β through irrationality it can also resultΒ in actions of desperation.

As an indie game developer, Β what I observe is that I need both of these types(both short and long) to create somethingΒ meaningful to me (and hopefully to others). Short-term motivation is in fact really great for coming up with cool ideas or extensions to the present idea and this generally occurs in flashes (in bursts of short time windows). Perhaps, if you are trying to do the artwork by yourself too, this short-termΒ is a must.

However, short-term motivation or creativity is not enough by itself. What I see in indie devs as a trend is that, they feel themselves as artists or more like an independent person free of any obligations, a truly free mind. This is a really great personification to trigger short-term motivation. (and may explain our urge to pull all-nighters constantly) On the other hand, what I observe is that, if you get obsessive on this feeling your ability to sustain a long-term motivation diminishes and this obsession may do harm more than being helpful.

I do not claim that one needs to be really orderly or plan his/her each step, but I always think that happiness or success that will come with delayed satisfaction is superior to instant gratification. (I often(!) fail at this too)

Balanced motivation reached with both logical and creative mindsets will result in better quality games. That is why, I decided to have an ongoing mid-sized project on the table for all times, a game or a website thatΒ I can create myself without any help, although it will probably take 3-4 months. A product that I can brag about when I publish it.

Once IΒ reach such a motivation level, I personally work on several projects at a time and can be quite productive. Then, the only thing to watch out is not to overload yourself. If you get tiredΒ and the motivation slips away, you can revert back to short-term motivation anyways. In those days in whichΒ you feel doing nothing, just think about the days you had a blast and try reaching that mindset by building up your motivation. The best way to build up is to start with something really small, accomplish it and thenΒ aim something a little bit bigger, and so on. But, always have a big-sized goal in your mind.

Perhaps, such a cycle is common to all of us indies. Or this is just me πŸ™‚

 

Refs.

[r] Short-Term vs Long-Term Motivation http://www.christopherpicardi.com/concepts/Motivation%20/short-term-vs-long-term-motivation

 

 

Tic Tac Toe in PHP [Single Page]